In re Marriage of Villcampa, 2021 IL App (1st) 210073-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Villcampa, 2021 IL App (1st) 210073-U (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Nov. 2, 2021) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Sheila Villcampa. Respondent‑Appellee: Casmir Manyonyi Mungaho.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review an appeal filed before a final dissolution judgment and without complying with the interlocutory‑appeal procedures governing child‑custody orders (Ill. S. Ct. Rules 301, 304, 306, 307).
- Whether a pro se notice of appeal can substitute for a Rule 306 petition for leave to appeal an interlocutory order affecting allocation of parental responsibilities.

3) Holding / Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant failed to obtain leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal under Ill. S. Ct. Rule 306(a)(5) and did not present a final, appealable order.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The court first emphasized its obligation to determine jurisdiction sua sponte. A final judgment was lacking because trial on the dissolution and allocation petitions remained pending and a motion to voluntarily dismiss had not been ruled on; therefore Rule 301 (final‑judgment rule) barred review.
- Rule 304(b)(6) (immediate appeal from final custody judgments) did not apply because no permanent custody judgment existed. The record contained no Rule 304(a) certificate.
- Interlocutory appeals as of right (Rule 307) did not fit the record; the subject orders were not among those enumerated.
- Rule 306(a)(5) (effective Oct. 1, 2020) permits appellate review by leave for interlocutory orders affecting care/custody, but Rule 306(b) requires filing a petition for leave within 14 days of the order (with an authenticated record and optional legal memorandum). No Rule 306 petition was filed here; a pro se notice of appeal cannot substitute for the Rule 306 petition requirement. The court cited precedent that filing the petition is a jurisdictional prerequisite (In re Alexis H., 335 Ill. App. 3d 1009).

5) Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Treat Rule 306(a)(5)/(b) as jurisdictional and time‑sensitive: file a petition for leave to appeal within 14 days for interlocutory child‑custody orders and include the authenticated record. A notice of appeal alone is insufficient.
- If no final judgment exists, consider (a) seeking a Rule 304(a) certification where appropriate, (b) moving for a prompt final order, or (c) timely filing a Rule 306 petition.
- Beware unsigned or file‑stamped orders in the record; confirm existence of a proper, entered order before appealing.
- Pro se litigants are particularly vulnerable to procedural forfeitures; counsel should advise clients promptly on interlocutory appeal mechanics.